Appeal No. 1997-1738
Application No. 08/255,040
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. '
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
It is our conclusion that the low pressure chromatography
systems of Saxena do not anticipate, or render obvious, the
supercritical fluid chromatograph limitation of appellants’
claim and we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Saxena, or,
alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Saxena.
We find that the Saxena reference does not teach a
supercritical fluid chromatograph as recited in claim 11 on
appeal. Saxena teaches chromatography systems using flow
columns (Figs. 1 and 2) and explains that high pressure, high
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007